Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 08:14:17 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Pyun YongHyeon <pyunyh@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD current mailing list <current@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: call for sk(4) testers Message-ID: <20060113081234.E24703@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <20060113010140.GC17655@rndsoft.co.kr> References: <20060112113251.GB13481@rndsoft.co.kr> <20060112115600.P24703@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <20060113010140.GC17655@rndsoft.co.kr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 12:00:02PM +0000, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > >Here is modified sk(4) that makes use of bus_dma(9). It was lightly > > >tested on sparc64(SMP)/i386(SMP). > > > > I had a really quick glance at the patch and I will try it this > > evening. Sounds really great! > > > > >Changes from stock sk(4) > > >- MPSAFE. No more recursive lock requiried. > > > > Are you sure you can get a away with the recursive lock for the dual > > port cards? > > > Since sk_intr handles both interrupts originated from MAC I think it > would be ok(I don't have dual port hardware). > Apart from that is there any reason the driver should use recursive > lock? I don't have dual port sk(4) hardware either atm. I guess I should look at the new locking strategy in detail. -- Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060113081234.E24703>